AREVI

EW OFTHE2020-
2021BUDGETPROPOSAL
APROJ
ECTOFTHEMAI
NEHERI
TAGEPOLI
CYCENTER

THEPROPOSEDMI
LLS

BUDGET
I
RRESPONSI
BLE.
UNSUSTAI
NABLE.

Adam Crepeau MARCH

Li
am Sigaud 2019
 THE MAINE HERITAGE POLICY CENTER

THE PROPOSED MILLS BUDGET​:

IRRESPONSIBLE. UNSUSTAINABLE.
A Review of the 2020-2021 Budget Proposal

Matthew Gagnon
Chief Executive Officer

Adam Crepeau
Policy Analyst

Liam Sigaud
Policy Analyst
Introduction
The budget proposal released on February 8, 2019, by Governor Janet Mills reflects the urge among
Maine’s political left to drastically increase spending on new and existing programs. If enacted as
drafted, this budget would swiftly deteriorate Maine’s exceptional fiscal standing. It proposes an
increase in spending of approximately 11.33 percent, which far exceeds inflation or personal
income growth. This includes:
● $146.7 million to expand Medicaid to childless, able-bodied adults earning up to 138
percent of the federal poverty level (FPL)
● An increase of $324 million to the Department of Education over the biennium, including an
additional $126 million earmarked for K-12 education
● Incremental increases in revenue sharing to 2.5 percent in fiscal year (FY) 2020 and 3
percent in FY 2021
● Setting the minimum annual salary for teachers at $40,000
● Dedicating $7 million to begin phasing in a voluntary Universal Pre-K program
● Using $124 million in surplus revenues (one-time funding) to cover spending increases
● Spending nearly all projected revenue, leaving just $383,355 to spare
If Mills' budget is passed as proposed, Maine will spend virtually all of its projected revenue over
the two-year period, leaving almost no room for error. If Maine sees an unexpected negative
economic swing, weak economic growth, the cost of government exceeds estimates, or the revenue
projections fail to fully materialize, the state will be forced to raid the Budget Stabilization Fund
(i.e., the “rainy day fund”) or ask Maine taxpayers to hand over more of their hard-earned money
through new or increased taxes and fees.
The Revenue Forecasting Commission has said, “history would suggest that the U.S. economy is
closer to the next recession than from the last.”1 Governor Mills shared this sentiment during her
inaugural address, stating, “We know that a recession is possible in the next few years.”2 Simply put,
the governor’s budget proposal is irresponsible and unsustainable.
There are many opportunities to further strengthen Maine’s economic standing through the
2020-21 biennial budget. With an adjusted revenue forecast of $7.91 billion to work with,
lawmakers have a golden opportunity to enact meaningful tax reductions to ease the burden on
Mainers who currently face some of the highest tax rates in the country.3 However, Mills’ budget
takes the opposite course, leaving just a $383,355 cushion in surplus funds over the two-year
budget period. In this report, we discuss several wasteful and misguided policy initiatives and
identify missed opportunities that would actually benefit the people of Maine.

Medicaid Expansion
The Mills budget dedicates approximately $146.7 million over the biennium to expand Medicaid
eligibility to adults with income at or below 138 percent of the federal poverty level by relying on

1
https://www.maine.gov/budget/sites/maine.gov.budget/files/inline-files/Governors%20Biennial%20Budget%20Ove
rview%20FY%2020.21.pdf
2
https://bangordailynews.com/2019/01/02/politics/read-janet-mills-full-inaugural-address/
3
https://quickbooks.intuit.com/r/the-most-and-least-taxed-states-in-the-u-s/

1
one-time funding sources. This level of spending exceeds the $54.5 million annual cost estimate at
full implementation that was established by the Office of Fiscal and Program Review in 2017.
However it also falls short of the roughly $179.5 million cost projected by the Department of Health
and Human Services under Governor Paul LePage for the 2020-21 biennium.4 Figure 1
demonstrates the difference in estimated costs for Medicaid expansion from 2017 to present. Given
the massive enrollment and cost overruns seen in other states that have expanded Medicaid,
Governor Mills’ proposal may not be sufficient to cover the true costs of the program.

Maine’s previous decision to expand Medicaid led to a dramatic increase in Medicaid enrollment. In
2002, Maine was granted a Section 1115(a) demonstration waiver, which allowed adults with
income at or below 125
percent of the FPL to
enroll in Medicaid.
Approximately 11,000 new
members were projected
to enroll, but within 14
months, nearly 17,000
joined the program. After
budget shortfalls tied to
the cost of
higher-than-expected
Medicaid enrollment, the
program was capped at
25,000 people to control
spending levels.5

Nonetheless, total Medicaid spending in Maine grew from $1.4 billion in 2002 to $2.6 billion in
2011, and nearly doubled as a share of the state budget.6 As a result, the state accrued a massive
debt to hospitals. This experience with expansion should be enough to deter the state from
expanding Medicaid once again.

Not only does Maine have firsthand experience of the perils of Medicaid expansion, but many other
expansion states have had to spend more than anticipated on the program due to
higher-than-projected enrollment and per-person costs. For example, four years after Oregon
expanded Medicaid to cover able-bodied adults, the state had to come up with $328 million to cover
the costs that were not accounted for in the original estimates.7

4
https://mainepolicy.org/mhpc-response-to-fiscal-note-on-medicaid-expansion-referendum/;
https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/upcoming/citizensguide2017.pdf
5
https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/Alexander/Maine%20Medicaid%20Expansion%20Report.pdf ;
https://www.themainewire.com/2017/08/medicaid-expansion-jeopardizes-services-needy/
6
https://mainepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/Reject-Medicaid-Expansion.pdf
7
https://www.theindependent.com/opinion/another_opinion/medicaid-expansion-burdens-taxpayers-takes-resources-
from-the-truly-needy/article_c94976b8-8936-11e8-ad80-e7075cc35012.html

2
Similarly, Ohio’s underestimates of Medicaid expansion enrollees resulted in the program
absorbing more than 50 percent of the state’s general operating fund.8 Maryland’s projected cost for
expansion was approximately $1.5 billion, whereas the actual cost was more than $4.7 billion.9

According to the Foundation for Government Accountability, every state that had publicly
accessible data regarding Medicaid expansion as of 2018 experienced slight to severe cost overruns
due to expansion, as seen in Table 1. These states, on average, experienced 92 percent cost
overruns, meaning the program’s cost burden has almost doubled what was initially projected in
these states.

Table 1: Projected and Actual Medicaid Expansion Costs by State (in millions)10
Years of Data
State Projected Cost Actual Cost Cost Overruns Percent Over Available

Alaska $320 $593 $273 85% 2 years

Arizona $4,652 $5,350 $698 15% 2.5 years

Arkansas $1,800 $3,225 $1,425 79% 2.5 years

California $11,558 $43,679 $32,121 278% 2.5 years

Colorado $2,233 $3,270 $1,036 46% 2.5 years

Hawaii $236 $625 $389 165% 2 years

Illinois $4,596 $9,230 $4,633 101% 3 years

Iowa $1,378 $1,734 $356 26% 2.5 years

Kentucky $3,068 $5,971 $2,903 95% 2.5 years

Louisiana $1,164 $2,509 $1,344 115% 1 year

Maryland $1,475 $4,707 $3,232 219% 2.5 years

Michigan $5,458 $6,664 $1,206 22% 2.25 years

Montana $473 $802 $329 70% 2 years

New Hampshire $899 $1,066 $168 19% 2.75 years

New Mexico $2,150 $2,877 $727 34% 2.5 years

North Dakota $208 $547 $339 163% 2.5 years

Ohio $7,383 $14,467 $7,084 96% 3.5 years

Oregon $3,185 $6,162 $2,977 93% 2.5 years

Pennsylvania $1,463 $2,813 $1,350 92% 1 year

Washington $3,611 $6,456 $2,845 79% 2.5 years

West Virginia $1,268 $1,835 $567 45% 2.5 years

Source: Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA)

8
https://www.theindependent.com/opinion/another_opinion/medicaid-expansion-burdens-taxpayers-takes-resources-
from-the-truly-needy/article_c94976b8-8936-11e8-ad80-e7075cc35012.html
9
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/2019/02/08/rep-brad-last-utah-cant-afford-prop-3-version-medicaid-ex
pansion/2812537002/
10
https://thefga.org/research/budget-crisis-three-parts-obamacare-bankrupting-taxpayers/

3
Based on the average cost overrun in these states, an additional $134 million may need to be
redirected to Medicaid in the coming years if cost projections in Maine are similarly inaccurate.
Governor Mills proposes to allocate $29 million to a Medicaid Reserve Account, but this would not
be nearly enough to cover potential funding shortfalls. In addition, these one-time funds come from
the Fund for a Healthy Maine, a fund created in 1999 to receive and disburse tobacco settlement
money.11

Based on trends in enrollment since Governor Mills signed Executive Order 1 to expand Medicaid, 12
the state is on-track to exceed 70,000 enrollees before April 2020, with an average of 1,119 newly
eligible Mainers being added to the rolls weekly as of the publishing of this report.13 Several states
exceeded their enrollment projections within one year. For example, when Pennsylvania expanded
Medicaid in January 2015, the state exceeded its enrollment projections within nine months.14 At
the rate Maine’s enrollment is going, the state could exceed projections within fourteen months,
similar to what the state experienced when the program was previously expanded.

Lastly, this budget prioritizes Medicaid expansion funding but does almost nothing to help
individuals on waitlists beyond what is required by current law. As of January 2019, 1,598 people
who have intellectual and developmental disabilities such as autism continued to languish on
Section 21 waitlists. Overall, there are approximately 2,427 people on waitlists in the state that
include other sections of Medicaid and state-funded programs. This budget adds only 300 new slots
for Section 21 services. Not only does Medicaid expansion cause fiscal concerns for the state, but it
also leads to moral questions about which individuals should be prioritized in government
assistance programs. It also undermines the mission of the Medicaid program, which is to care for
the neediest Mainers.

Revenue Sharing
Revenue Sharing was established to “stabilize the municipal property tax burden and aid in
financing all municipal services.”15 This program redistributes state revenue to cities and towns
across Maine. The major tax revenue streams that fund the Revenue Sharing program are:16

● Individual Income Tax

● Corporate Income Tax
● Sales and Use Tax
● Service Provider Tax (part)
● Franchise Tax on Financial Institutions

11
https://www.maine.gov/budget/sites/maine.gov.budget/files/inline-files/General%20Fund%202020%202021%20la
nguage%20Final.pdf
12
https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/sites/maine.gov.governor.mills/files/inline-files/Executive%20Order%201_
0.pdf
13
https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/expansion.shtml
14
https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medicaid-and-chip-enrollment-data/enrollment-mbes/in
dex.html
15
http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/30-A/title30-Asec5681.html
16
https://mainepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/261721109-Revenue-Sharing-Report.pdf

4
Mills’ proposed budget increases municipal revenue sharing from the current levels of 2 percent to
2.5 percent in FY 2020 and 3 percent in FY 2021. It should be noted, however, that revenue sharing
was slated to return to 5 percent in FY 2020. Figure 2 shows the amounts that would be dedicated
to revenue sharing over the biennium based on current law at 5 percent, Governor Mills’
incremental increases over the biennium from 2 to 2.5 and 3 percent, and the amount The Maine
Heritage Policy Center estimates the state would dedicate if revenue sharing remained at 2 percent.
Governor Mills’ increase in revenue sharing represents an additional $60 million in spending on
municipal aid over allocations that would be made if the state remained at 2 percent.17

While the municipal Revenue

Sharing program is intended to
help cities and towns reduce
property taxes, historical
increases in revenue sharing
have not correlated with
property tax relief for
homeowners. Instead, an
infusion of state money leads
towns to grow their budgets
and not reduce property taxes.
In fact, an analysis conducted
by The Maine Heritage Policy
Center in 2015 found that when
the amount dedicated to
revenue sharing increases, so do property tax collections.18 In essence, revenue sharing allows
funds from state coffers to pay for municipal projects that might not be undertaken if local officials
had to justify increasing property taxes to cover the costs.

Handing over an additional $60 million in revenue sharing funds with no strings attached is a
mistake. If this budget proposal was serious about giving property tax relief to Mainers in
struggling municipalities, it would add a provision to mandate reductions in property tax rates in
return for revenue sharing funds. Instead, this proposal would allow municipalities that receive
revenue sharing funds to continue taxing residents at or above the rates currently imposed, and to
expand spending beyond their means.

Since this budget does not increase revenue sharing to the full 5 percent in statute, $159.7 million
will not be dedicated to revenue sharing from the General Fund over the biennium. Governor Mills
misses an opportunity to use these additional funds to reduce the income tax burden for Maine
taxpayers. Instead, she spends the additional “savings” of $159.7 million on other projects and
incrementally increases municipal revenue sharing to reduce property taxes, a theory for which

17
https://www.maine.gov/budget/sites/maine.gov.budget/files/inline-files/Governors%20Biennial%20Budget%20Ov
erview%20FY%2020.21.pdf
18
https://mainepolicy.org/project/revenue-sharing-a-failed-program/

5
there is little evidence to suggest these property tax reductions will be realized. When responding
to a question about whether an increase in revenue sharing will ensure a decrease in municipal
property taxes, Governor Mills said, “with more than 400 municipalities and thousands of different
ways that they need to spend their money, I’m not sure that that’s practical.”19 This statement
shows that Governor Mills is uncertain about whether revenue sharing will decrease property taxes
for Mainers. Even if municipalities were motivated to decrease property taxes after receiving
enhanced revenue sharing funds, Governor Mills includes mandates in her budget that would likely
disincentivize municipalities to decrease their property tax rates. In other words, the priorities
outlined in the proposed budget counteract one another.

Minimum Teacher Salary

The Mills budget raises the minimum salary for public school teachers to $40,000 annually, a 33
percent increase over current levels ($30,000). While Maine should better compensate exceptional
teachers, Mills’ proposal lacks accountability mechanisms to ensure that low-performing teachers
and districts are not rewarded. The budget dedicates $10 million to school districts to implement
this increase in FY 2021, which is the annual cost estimated by the Department of Education.20
These funds will be directed to districts through a verification process as an adjustment to
“phase-in local responsibility for teachers’ salaries.”21 The average starting salary for teachers in
2017 was $38,617 nationwide and $36,845 in New Hampshire.22

It should be noted that since starting salaries would increase by 33 percent, teachers who have
been in the profession for several years and earn equal to or just above $40,000 annually will
inevitably expect to receive a commensurate boost in pay, further driving up costs for local districts.
These salary increases would be negotiated through collective bargaining agreements at the local
level and are not calculated in Mills’ budget proposal. These increases would inevitably put financial
strain on local school districts, in addition to phasing in the $40,000 minimum teacher salary
mandate.

Increasing the starting salary for teachers to $40,000 could disproportionately affect areas in the
state that already have difficulty funding their school budgets once responsibility is phased in at the
local level. While the state would be funding this increase initially, the entire cost will be incurred
by school districts in the future. After Maine increased teachers’ starting salaries in 2005 to a
minimum of $30,000, state funding for the initiative was halted in the 2012-13 biennium, which put
the burden on school districts to fund this mandate.23 Shifting the burden to school districts would
counteract Governor Mills’ stated goals of decreasing property taxes through increases in revenue
sharing and enhanced state funding for education, particularly when municipalities take on this
burden.

19
https://www.facebook.com/michael.shepherd.925/videos/10217051988719308/
20
https://www.maine.gov/budget/sites/maine.gov.budget/files/inline-files/GF%202020%202021%20Part%20A.pdf
21
http://legislature.maine.gov/backend/app/services/getDocument.aspx?doctype=test&documentId=98010
22
http://www.nea.org/home/2016-2017-average-starting-teacher-salary.html
23
https://www.pressherald.com/2017/05/03/bill-would-set-maine-teacher-salaries-at-minimum-of-40000/

6
Whether the cost is incurred by the state, school districts or both, taxpayers in the Maine are still
going to be paying for this increase, which is more than the national average. Instead of mandating
that teachers be paid more by state law, school districts should be the ones responsible for deciding
how much teachers are compensated. After all, if funds were available for a $40,000 minimum
salary at the local level, school districts would have set salaries at this level already.

Universal Pre-K
This budget proposal provides preliminary funding for a voluntary Universal Pre-K program,
despite the lack of evidence that such a program would help Maine students. Not only is Universal
Pre-K expensive, but it has not proven to increase the long-term cognitive ability or academic
performance of children. In fact, it was found that most of the advantages gained from Head Start
and similar programs do not persist into the third grade.24 Another study found that when children
gained statistically significant improvements during preschool years, these gains faded when they
entered kindergarten and first grade.25

In addition to being ineffective, implementing a Universal Pre-K program in the state would be
costly. In January 2019, the ​Portland Press Herald reported that a Universal Pre-K program would
cost $48 million annually, excluding local matching funds, if all families in the state used the
program.26 This budget dedicates $7 million to school administrative units in FY 2021 to establish a
statewide public preschool program that will be available “to all Maine students”27 and is
considered a “first step” in funding a “four-year plan to fund voluntary Universal Pre-K.”28 This
initiative does not yet mandate that every school district implement Universal Pre-K. However, the
Governor’s four year plan to implement this program could result in heightened property taxes for
municipalities if it does become mandated in the future. It would be a mistake to implement a
program that is not only ineffective, but expensive to taxpayers.

Wasteful Spending Increases

Governor Mills’ budget raises funding, sometimes by massive amounts, for virtually every
department and agency in state government. There was clearly little initiative taken by the Mills
administration to find efficiencies within state government or to eliminate ineffective programs.

A condensed breakdown of the departments that see the largest spending increases in Governor
Mills’ budget can be found in Table 2. The largest spending increases in the Mills budget are for the

24
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/hs_quality_report_4_28_14_final.pdf
25
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED558006.pdf
26
https://www.pressherald.com/2019/01/14/statewide-pre-kindergarten-programs-in-public-schools-gaining-moment
um/
27
https://www.maine.gov/budget/sites/maine.gov.budget/files/inline-files/GF%202020%202021%20Part%20A.pdf
28
https://www.maine.gov/budget/sites/maine.gov.budget/files/inline-files/Governors%20Biennial%20Budget%20Ov
erview%20FY%2020.21.pdf;https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-janet-mills-state-budget-address
-2019-02-11

7
Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Office of the State
Treasurer, accounting for 81 percent of new spending.29

Table 2: Janet Mills’ Budget Broken Down By Department/Agency

Department/Agency 2018-2019 2020-2021 % Change Difference

Department of Education $2,601,123,634 $2,925,080,153 12.45% $323,956,519
Department of Health and Human
Services $2,427,427,007 $2,718,135,671 11.98% $290,708,664
Office of the State Treasurer $191,305,719 $230,568,942 20.52% $39,263,223
Source: Bureau of the Budget

Department of Education Increase

Governor Mills’ proposal dramatically increases spending to the Department of Education by 12.45
percent, or by approximately $324 million. The total budgeted amount for the Department of
Education is $2.95 billion.
Merely throwing money at
the department will not
improve outcomes in our
education system. These
funds need to be tied to
desired outcomes in order to
be effective. In addition,
student enrollment counts
have declined since 2008. In
the 2018-19 school year,
182,496 students attended
public school in Maine while
192,181 attended public
school in the 2008-09 school
year, illustrating that
enrollment has declined while spending has substantially increased. 30

Figure 3 highlights the increase in spending for the Department of Education in Governor Mills’
budget proposal. Without adjusting for inflation, this increase is approximately $27.5 million more
than all of the budget increases combined since former Governor Baldacci’s 2010-2011 biennial
budget.

29
https://www.maine.gov/budget/sites/maine.gov.budget/files/inline-files/Governors%20Biennial%20Budget%20Ov
erview%20FY%2020.21.pdf
30
https://www.maine.gov/doe/data-reporting/reporting/warehouse/student-enrollment-data

8
Consider this historical trend: The final 2018-19 biennial budget signed by Governor LePage
increased funding to the Department of Education by 243.5 million, or 10.33 percent.31 However,
that budget was an outlier over the last decade. The first three biennial budgets Governor LePage
signed either decreased funding or increased funding by less than five percent.32

Some of the increases to the Department of Education include:

● An additional $87.9 million for teacher retirement costs
● $7 million for the start of a voluntary Universal Pre-K program
● $10 million dedicated to increasing teachers’ starting salaries
● Additional $126 million for K-12 education over the biennium

Department of Health and Human Services Increase

Funding for the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is increased by $290.7 million
under this proposal, more than the total increases for the department in the last three biennial
budgets combined. Expanding the size of DHHS by this measure is fiscally irresponsible. This
increase is primarily due to the $146.7 million dedicated to expand Medicaid to able-bodied,
childless adults.
Figure 4 outlines the increases in spending over time in the Department of Health and Human
Services. It is evident that former Governor LePage exercised fiscal restraint by only increasing
spending by approximately $264 million since his first biennial budget was passed.

Many of the funds Mills dedicates to

Medicaid expansion and other DHHS
programs would be better spent
bolstering Maine’s Earned Income Tax
Credit (EITC), the most effective
anti-poverty initiative of state
government. The EITC acts as a wage
supplement, rewarding low-income
people for participating in the workforce.
In 2015, 102,000 households in Maine
benefited from the EITC and the average
reduced liability was over $2,000.
Research from 2015 shows that a $1,000 increase in the EITC resulted in a 7.3 percent increase in
employment for families below 100 percent of the federal poverty line. Although the EITC already
does much good, benefits are limited for some families and especially single adults. Expanding
eligibility and increasing the benefit amount, while enacting compensating cuts in other, less

31
https://www.maine.gov/budget/sites/maine.gov.budget/files/inline-files/Governors%20Biennial%20Budget%20Ov
erview%20FY%2020.21.pdf; https://digitalmaine.com/bob_docs/9/
32
https://www.maine.gov/budget/budget-information/archived-budget-information

9
effective assistance programs, would make the EITC an even more potent weapon against poverty
in Maine while encouraging self-sufficiency.

Office of the State Treasurer Increase

The Office of the State Treasurer
would receive a $39.2 million
increase if this budget is passed. Of
these funds, $39 million is dedicated
to the Debt Service program.
The Debt Service program is
administered through the Office of
the State Treasurer and is used for
legislative and executive branch
budgeting efforts to service
outstanding bonds in the state.

In addition, the language in this

budget allows the State Treasurer to carry over balances remaining in the Debt Service program
into the 2020-21 biennium, giving the legislature more leeway to pass new bonds. Figure 5 outlines
funding increases to the Office of the State Treasurer from 2010 to the current budget proposal.

Revenue Projections and Recession Model

This budget proposal leaves little room
for error in revenue projections. A slight
weakening in economic conditions over
the next two years would compel
spending reductions, supplemental
budgets, and potentially tax increases.
The Revenue Forecasting Committee
warns that we are closer to the next
recession than the last, yet Governor
Mills’ budget ignores the possibility of
an economic downturn, despite
mentioning it in her inaugural address.
This is not a far-fetched proposition.
During the last recession, state revenue
projections were inaccurate. Revenue with the governor’s adjustments was supposed to be $6.43
billion during the 2008-09 biennium. Instead, the state brought in only $5.89 billion.33 Figure 6
outlines revenue projections with the governor’s recommended adjustments from both the
2008-09 biennial budget and the current budget proposal, and compares them to actual revenue

33
https://www.maine.gov/legis/ofpr/general_fund/rev_exp_history/index.htm

10
during the last major recession (2008-09 biennial budget) to assess what actual revenue might look
like during a similar recession in the upcoming biennium. Though this is an extreme comparison, it
provides a point of reference.

If another economic downturn were to strike, Mills’ proposed spending levels would be
unsustainable. If the current revenue projections are similarly inaccurate, the state would collect
approximately $3.85 billion in FY 2020 and $3.51 billion in FY 2021 as opposed to the projected
$3.89 billion and $4.02 billion respectively, featured in the Governor’s Budget Overview. This would
be a difference of approximately $550 million over the biennium, a massive shortfall. Lawmakers
would need to raid the Budget Stabilization Fund, which still would not cover the cost of such a
harsh economic downturn.

In fact, the Governor’s Budget Overview included a “stress-test” that concluded a moderate
recession would leave a shortfall of $237 million by 2021 and a severe recession, similar to that
experienced in 2008, would leave a $400-525 million shortfall by FY 2023.34 The governor would
then need to find additional funds to cover the difference, most likely by raising taxes or cutting

spending since the Budget Stabilization Fund, containing $272.9 million35, would be completely
emptied. While former Governor LePage was successful in building the Budget Stabilization Fund to
its current levels, it still would not be enough to cover the initiatives being proposed in this budget
under a moderate or severe recession.

34
https://www.maine.gov/dafs/economist/sites/maine.gov.dafs.economist/files/inline-files/Stress-Testing_Maine_Ge
neral_Fund_Revenues_and_Reserves_FY19-FY23.pdf
35
Ibid.

11
Figure 7 compares actual revenue and projected revenue from the Revenue Forecasting Committee
included in the Governor’s Budget Overview. To be consistent, only the revenue forecasts from the
Governor’s Budget Overviews were included in this analysis. While actual revenue typically exceeds
projected revenue from the forecasts included within the budget overviews, there are some
circumstances where it does not. For example, projected revenue exceeded actual revenue in the
2008-09 and 2010-11 biennial budgets. This occurred during the recession and shows how an
economic downturn can cause revenue forecasts to be incorrect, leading to budget shortfalls and
supplemental budgets.

Clearly, if a recession just as bad as the last is on the horizon, this level of spending would
significantly hurt the state and subsequently put the burden on Maine taxpayers.36 Governor Mills
would be wise to spend less in her first biennial budget and create a larger buffer between
projected revenues and her current budget proposal. A cushion of $383,355 and the $272.9 million
in the Budget Stabilization Fund would not be nearly enough to cover the costs of this budget
proposal in the event of an economic downturn. The total amount of funds that can be in the Budget
Stabilization Fund cannot surpass 18 percent of the previous year’s General Fund revenues, or $646
million.37 In sum, total spending levels in this budget are far too high for the state to endure even a
moderate recession. Responsible budgeting would include creating a larger buffer between
projected revenues and proposed spending.

Budgets Based on Inflation vs. Actual Budgets

There is a clear trend as to the direction that state spending has gone; it has increased significantly,
and the current budget does not change that trend. Had every biennial budget since 2005 increased
only by the inflation rate from the previous full year, Maine would be in a much more fiscally
sustainable position and
Maine taxpayers would
keep more of their
money.38

Figure 8 shows the

difference between actual
government spending
and spending based on
inflation from the FY
2005 budget to present.
The results show that the
current proposal would
be approximately $7.06
billion, a difference of

36
https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-tax-changes-in-response-to-the-recession
37
https://www.pressherald.com/2018/11/08/state-budget-fortified-against-recession-by-rainy-day-fund/
38
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-inflation-rate-history-by-year-and-forecast-3306093

12
$973 million, if the increases over previous budgets had not exceeded inflation. This would be more
than enough to fill the Budget Stabilization Fund to its maximum capacity and still have a surplus
available for subsequent budgets. In addition, state government would be able to reduce taxes or
implement other significant reforms that could help all Mainers.

Actual appropriations have increased substantially since 2005 and increase much further in this
budget proposal. Since the 2012-13 biennial budget, spending has steadily increased relative to the
inflation model used in Figure 8. However, Mills’ biennial budget deviates from this trend with a gap
of about $973 million. To put this in perspective, Governor LePage’s last budget deviated from the
inflation model by approximately $422 million, or less than half of the current proposal. Massive
increases to state government spending, such as what is proposed in Mills’ budget, will not
withstand the test of time.

Conclusion and Takeaways

Over the last eight years, Maine has improved its fiscal standing. Not only does the state have
$124.3 million in surplus funds, which are proposed to be spent in this budget, we also have a
relatively robust Budget Stabilization Fund. But if Maine experiences a moderate to severe
economic downturn, the Budget Stabilization Fund would be insufficient to cover the shortfalls
caused by Mills’ bloated budget. Put simply, spending more than $8 billion over the next biennium
is unsustainable, and leaving a $383,355 cushion to protect taxpayers is irresponsible.
In addition to leaving an inadequate cushion of last resort, this proposal also increases revenue
sharing while creating expensive new mandates for municipalities. Because increases in revenue
sharing do not correlate to reductions in property tax liability, taxpayers will likely see their
property tax rates rise over the biennium. Instead of asking hard questions and making tough
decisions to control growth, the Mills budget calls for near universal spending increases across state
government without setting goals or standards for this spending to achieve meaningful efficiencies
within existing programs and departments.
Lastly, the Mills budget misses out on an opportunity to provide tax relief that would help all
Mainers. Given the gains Maine’s economy has made in recent years and the fiscal restraint
employed by the last administration, Maine is uniquely positioned to provide further income tax
reductions to taxpayers. Governor Mills could have returned surplus funds from the last budget and
a portion of projected revenues over the biennium to provide income tax reductions across the
board. Instead, she has proposed using these funds to grow government spending to its highest
levels in state history.
The time is now, when it is economically feasible, to enact meaningful tax reforms. Maine competes
with other states in the region that impose lower income tax rates, including New Hampshire which
does not impose an individual income tax altogether. This begs the question: If not now, when will
it be possible to enact tax reform to increase Maine’s economic competitiveness and reduce the
burden on Maine people?

13
Thisisas pec
ialpubl
icat
ionoftheTheMai neHer
it
agePoli
cyCenter.Al
linf
ormati
oni
nthi
sr epor
tisf
rom
sourcesconsi
deredrel
iable,howevermaybesubj
ectt
oinacc
uraci
es,omissi
ons,andmodi
fi
cati
ons.

ABOUTTHEAUTHORS

Adam Cr epeauisaPol icyAnal ystatTheMai neHer it

agePol
icyCenter,
andtheleadr esearcheronthispublicat
ion.Bef
orejoini
ngMHPC,Cr epeau
ser
vedasas peci
alas si
stanttoformerMai neGov er
norPaulLePageand
asal egislat
i
veaidei nthe128t hMai neLegisl
ature.Hei sasummac um
l
audegr aduateoftheUni versi
tyofNewHamps hir
ewi thadual
majorinjus-
t
icestudiesandpol i
ti
calsc i
ence.

Liam SigaudisaPoli
cyAnal
ystatTheMai neHeri
tagePolicyCenter
.He
hasdirect
edsever
aldozenmajorpoli
cyresear
chpr
ojectsf
orMHPCsi nce
Oc t
oberof2015,i
ncl
udi
ngthefi
rstedi
tonofTheLegi
i sl
ati
veGui debook,
Top10Thi ngsKeepingMainersPoor ,andTheRedTapeGui debook.

Anati
veofRoc kl
andMai ne,heholdsaB.A.i
nBiologyfr
om theUni
versi
ty
ofMaineatAugust
a,andi sanexperi
enc
edresearcheri
nall
areasofpubl
ic
pol
icy
,wit
has pecif
icexpert
isei
nthehealt
hpoli
cyfiel
d.

ABOUTTHEMAI
NEHERI
TAGEPOLI
CYCENTER

TheMai neHer i
tagePolicyCent
erisaresearchandeducat
ional or
gani
zat
ionwhosemissi
onistof
ormulat
e
andpr omotec onservat
ivepubl
i
cpoli
ciesbas edonthepri
nc i
plesoffr
eeenter
pri
se;l
i
mited,const
it
uti
onal
government;indivi
dualfr
eedom;andtradit
ionalAmeri
canv al
ues–al lf
orthepur
poseofprovidi
ngpublic
pol
i
c ys ol
uti
onsthatbenefitt
hepeopl
eofMai ne.

MHPC’ sst
affpursuesthismissi
onbyundertaki
ngac curat
eandt i
melyr esear
chandmar keti
ngthesef i
nd-
i
ngstoitspr
imaryaudienc e:t
heMai neLegi
slat
ure,nonpart
isanLegisl
ati
ves t
aff
,theex ecut
ivebranch,the
st
ate’
smedi a,andt hebr oadpoli
cyc ommunit
y.MHPC’ sproduct
sincludepublicat
ions,arti
cl
es ,conf
er-
ences,andpoli
cybrief
ings.

Governedbyani ndependentBoar
dofDi r
ector
s,TheMaineHeritagePol
icyCenteri
sa501(c)
(3)nonprof
it
,
nonpart
isan,tax-exemptorgani
zat
ion.MHPCr el
iesonthegeneroussupportf
rom i
ndi
vi
dual
s,corpor
ati
ons,
andfoundations,anddoesnotac ceptgover
nmentfundsorperf
or mcont
ractwork.

Cont
ri
but
ionst
oMHPCar
etaxdeduct
ibl
etot
heext
ental
lowedbyl
aw.

©2019TheMai neHer
it
agePol
i
cyCent
er.Mat
eri
alf
rom t
hisdoc
umentmaybecopi
edanddi
str
ibut
edwi
t
h
pr
operci
tat
ion.

P.
O.Box7829,Por t
land,ME04112
Phone:207. 2550Fax
321. :207.
773.
4385
www.mainepoli
cy.
org
www.themai
newi r
e.com